mcquaid/usada july 13 letter to tygart/usada

7/31/2019 McQuaid/USADA July 13 letter to Tygart/USADA

1/3

INTER

President

Dear Travis,

Thank you for your letter date

I hope that USADA nor you ssympathise with those who diTravis, let there be no doubt t

second paragraph of your lettcycling and that UCI is the intclaims to handle this case un

Remember also that this cadated 30 April 2010. In thatUCI that he discovered factdoping rule violation. Therefor10, 1st par ADR) and notincluding USA Cycling whodoping organization having acomplete file of the case and

has occurred and disciplinarythat in this respect USADA athat USADA was conductingmanagement. In addition Uonly. UCI asked the nationalmail of 30 April 2010 to condcorrect that if USADAs invewould inform UCI of that.

Also where the accusation refauthority as these are UCI tes

CH 1860 Aigle / Switzerland+41 24 468 58 11 fax +41 24 468 58 12

www.uci.ch

NATIONAL CYCLING UNION

USADAMr Travis T. TygarChief Executive Of5555 Tech CenterColorado Springs,Colorado 80919-9USA

Sent by email onlytt@

Aigle, 13 July 201

Ref: Presidency

July 6, 2012.

ffered from what you call the events in Col.

hat UCI and I personally share the aim that

er. But bear in mind also that the sport youernational federation of cycling. In addition Ier the rules of the UCI.

e started with the email of Mr. Floyd Lanmail a UCI license-holder informs a national elements that, if proven, constitute thee the authority for results management liesSADA, even when UCI had several natielegates to USADA conduct an investi

uthority for results management UCI is entmake the consideration whether or not an

proceedings should be opened (article 23d WADA have a right of appeal (article 23an investigation but did not ask USADA tI assumed that USADA would investigatefederations of all those who were named i

uct an investigation as well. It would havetigation was going to touch other license h

ers to test results, the UCI is the only test rts.

tficerDrive, Suite 200

18

usada.org

rado Springs and I

you describe in the

are talking about isnoted that USADA

is to USA Cyclingal federation of thebasis for an anti-ith the UCI (article

onal federations ation. As the anti-itled to receive thenti-doping violation

ADR). I point out). UCI was awaretake over results

US license holdersn the Floyd Landisbeen only fair and

olders that USADA

sults management

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 40-3 Filed 08/03/12 Page 1 of 3


2/3

2/3

However it is not UCIs intention to suggest that it will decide not to go forward with the case.That will depend on the evidence available and that evidence is not available unless youforward the file to the UCI.

You will tell me or even would love to make public - that I support the arguments of LanceArmstrong in his court case against USADA but that is not the intention. The intention of theUCI is not to stop the case (which would not be possible in view of article 233) or to let it dragon. The evidence in the file will tell what it tells and the UCI shall act accordingly.

Yet you must accept that several questions asked by Lance Armstrong are relevant,especially in view of the fact that no more information has been made available to the UCIand the respondents who, whatever the facts may be, are entitled to fair process.

You can say that the respondents will be entitled to all rights of defense before AAA and,where applicable, CAS but there is also the right not to be dragged into disciplinaryproceedings unless there are solid grounds for that.

You may say that you know that there are solid grounds, but USADA is the only one that hasthe file. The respondents have not had the chance to defend their position before USADA orUSADAs Review board as they have not been given access to the evidence that issupposed to underlie the accusations against them and that was to be assessed by theReview board. It is not even known what information was submitted to the Review board. Insuch conditions it is difficult not to see the intervention of the Review board as a mereformality: how can the respondent take position on the evidence in the file if that evidence isnot made available? How can the respondent have his/her say on issues like jurisdiction andthe statute of limitation which may be elements that prevent proceedings from being openedby USADA? If the respondent is invited to take position on the issue of whether there isenough evidence the least that can be done is to provide the respondent with the evidence.And how can it be justified then that the respondent has only the choice between accepting a

sanction or accepting a disciplinary proceedings the solidity of which he was prevented fromcontesting before the body that was asked to check the solidity?

UCI does not feel comfortable with that, especially if such things which it finds problematic interms of due process and even in terms of ethics are pushed through by pleading the rules ofthe UCI.

This is particularly worrisome in this case because it is said to be based on witnessstatements only. UCI has no other information than that potential witnesses wereapproached by USADA and that advantages were promised in return for incriminatingstatements. This is problematic as well.

The UCI requests that USADA provides UCI with the case file of the matter, including the fileof the investigations that you say are still ongoing and may lead to other decisions byUSADA. The UCI wants to be informed and to exercise its role as results managementauthority before the cases against the respondents are taken further. This applies also to theinvestigations that you say are ongoing.

It is important that all parties concerned can have confidence in the process, including theresults management process and a process such as the one that USADAs Review board issupposed to conduct.

The UCI is well aware that Floyd Landis has made statements against the UCI and thatthese statements are part of the file.



3/3

3/3

The UCI does not want to judge such statements itself neither does it want to be seen tojudge such statements or to judge the respondents in this case.

The UCI wants that the whole case file with all the evidence is assessed by an independentpanel who shall then decide if the respondents have a case to answer. This is what shouldhave been done by USADA now that the case is based, as it seems, upon statements thatwere actively called by USADA. This should be done in a way that all respondents haveaccess to the evidence and can take an informed position. We can discuss the modalities forsetting up such panel and assuring their independence.

This is more appropriate than your proposal to meet and inform UCI in an informal way. Infact it is the only appropriate way. It is the respondents in the first place that have to beprovided with the evidence.

I agree with your conclusion that the sport should be clean and be cleaned but the means toachieve that goal should be clean as well.

And unless UCI is given full access to the file UCI is entitled to be in doubt about that.

In fact it is for clean athletes in the first place that it is necessary that they may be confidentthat fair and transparent procedures are in place that may prevent them from being draggedinto disciplinary proceedings without sufficient basis, for example in terms of evidence,jurisdiction or statute of limitation. However such procedural guarantees may not be deniedeither to athletes that you may be convinced to be guilty.

Compare with the results management process for whereabouts requirements: although asingle whereabouts failure is no anti-doping rule violation but only a potential element of sucha violation, the athlete has the right to be confronted with the evidence, to justifyhimself/herself and thereafter to ask for an administrative review. If ever an anti-doping rule

violation is found to have been committed after the disciplinary proceedings the sanction is aperiod of ineligibility between one and two year.

In this case USADA alleges the most serious violations based upon witnesses, thestatements of which are unknown and have been collected in unknown circumstances andUSADA requests a life ban. Dont you think that in this case the respondents are entitled atleast to a review where they can comment upon the evidence?

So the UCI insists that USADA provides it with the case file and refrains from proceedingwith the disciplinary actions until the file has been examined in a review process by anindependent body and where the respondents have the opportunity to see the evidence andcomment on it in front of that body before disciplinary proceedings are opened. Please

informed UCI also on the investigations that you say are still ongoing.

I thank you for your attention and trust that USADA will accept UCIs request.

Best regards,

Pat McQuaid

President

Cc: WADA, Mr David Howman, [email protected]


mcquaid/usada july 13 letter to tygart/usada

Documents